Understanding the whole of IFR

jonvcaples

jonvcaples

Pre-takeoff checklist
Gone West
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
395
Location
Colorado, USA
Display Name
Display name:
Sasquatch
Understanding IFR requires thought, study, and determination. Many people can quote the FARs etc verbatim but have little understanding of the whole.

Think of this way. A skilled typist can achieve speeds of 40 words per minute or higher with 95% accuracy. But that does not mean they are a Shakespeare.

Hopefully, this can be a tool helping those who are interested in becoming good IFR pilots. Let's use this as a place to explore and have fun!

Here are a couple of starter questions:

1-What are alternate minimums for KFTG?

2-Why are there no straight in approaches at KASE?

Answers in 72 hours...
 
jonvcaples said:
Understanding IFR requires thought, study, and determination. Many people can quote the FARs etc verbatim but have little understanding of the whole.

Think of this way. A skilled typist can achieve speeds of 40 words per minute or higher with 95% accuracy. But that does not mean they are a Shakespeare.

Hopefully, this can be a tool helping those who are interested in becoming good IFR pilots. Let's use this as a place to explore and have fun!

Here are a couple of starter questions:

1-What are alternate minimums for KFTG?

2-Why are there no straight in approaches at KASE?

Answers in 72 hours...
Click to expand...

LOC/DME 15 is straight in..
 
Grum.man no, it is not! Look at the name of the procedure LOC/DME-E.
 
jonvcaples said:
Grum.man no, it is not! Look at the name of the procedure LOC/DME-E.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am missing something but I do not see where a procedure turn or a hold is required to enter the approach which kind of defines a straight in approach.
 
Ryanb said:
NA when control tower closed.
- LOC, Category D, 800-2 1⁄2.
Click to expand...

A little more to it than that:

ILS or LOC Rwy 17
ILS or LOC Rwy 35
NA when control tower closed.
LOC, Category D, 800-2½.

ILS or LOC Rwy 26
LOC, Category D, 800-2½

RNAV (GPS) Rwy 17
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 26
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 35
Category D, 800-2½
 
Grum.Man said:
Maybe I am missing something but I do not see where a procedure turn or a hold is required to enter the approach which kind of defines a straight in approach.
Click to expand...

IIRC, -letter approaches are circling only
 
No straight in approaches at KASE?

For the LOC/DME-E, I'd say it has something to do with the 6.59 degree angle needed to descend 1860 feet in 3.1 NM between DOYPE and CEYAG.
 
Last edited:
Mix n Match, or just skip runway 17/35 and don't fly Cat D speeds to reduce cognitive load.

ILS or LOC Rwy 17 (1,2)
ILS or LOC Rwy 26 (2)
ILS or LOC Rwy 35 (1,2)
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 17 (3)
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 26 (3)
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 35 (3)

1
NA when control tower closed.
2
LOC, Category D, 800-2½.
3
Category D, 800-2½.


I've flown planes that can make the chop n drop on that LOC 15 straight-in. :D I'd rather pop an eardrum than circle in that terrain personally.
 
jonvcaples said:
Answers in 72 hours...
Click to expand...

Way to imply that no one but you knows the answers. We all bow before you.
:barfyface:

BTW, why is this not in Cleared for the Approach?

Forum description:
"Discuss all things ATC. If you have a question on radio procedures, flight plans, routing, or anything else related to the folks on the terrestrial side of the radio, this is the place to discuss it!"
 
1) Am I Part 91,135,121 in an airplane, in a helicopter, military / civilian????

2) Loc/DME E is a straight in approach. Just only has circling mins published.
 
Last edited:
EdFred, Not trying to imply anything just help expand circle of enlightenment. None of us has all the answers. The more we question, think, and analyze the better. And to say it again, with a little different spin, being able to quote the FARs is 7 steps on the wrong side of useless if you cannot apply the information.

Why did I put it here? Simple really, because I messed up! Your suggestion is a better place for it so let me get it moved. Thank you good sir!
 
Granted, it’s a special authorization approach, but it does exist.

upload_2019-9-6_15-55-42.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
1) Am I Part 91,135,121 in an airplane, in a helicopter, military / civilian????

2) Loc/DME E to 15 is a straight in approach. Just only has circling mins published.
Click to expand...

I believe that the definition of a straight in approach is the existence of runway minimums.
 
George Mohr said:
I believe that the definition of a straight in approach is the existence of runway minimums.
Click to expand...

Straight in approach only has to do with what G man said above. Approach that’s made without executing a PT.
 
Kritchlow said:
See above
Click to expand...
Yeah, your example is very much an example of straight in. But we were specifically talking about the Loc/DME E. I dont see that published anywhere though! Where did you get this from (I see its a Jepp chart, is it only published there?)
 
jonvcaples said:
Grum.man no, it is not! Look at the name of the procedure LOC/DME-E.
Click to expand...
Just because it doesn’t have straight in mins due to the decent profile it’s still a straight in approach since there is no reversal or procedure turn. You can still land straight out of the approach if you are able and have the field in sight. Some higher category aircraft may need to circle to loose altitude or airspeed.
 
George Mohr said:
Yeah, your example is very much an example of straight in. But we were specifically talking about the Loc/DME E. I dont see that published anywhere though! Where did you get this from (I see its a Jepp chart, is it only published there?)
Click to expand...
No... we were talking about ANY straight in approaches to KASE.
If it has a runway number, it’s straight in.
 
Grum.Man said:
Just because it doesn’t have straight in mins due to the decent profile it’s still a straight in approach since there is no reversal or procedure turn. You can still land straight out of the approach if you are able and have the field in sight. Some higher category aircraft may need to circle to loose altitude or airspeed.
Click to expand...
I have never heard the lack of a PT is what defund straight in approaches.
Heck, a few years back almost EVERY ILS had an option for a PT, just in case you were not in radar, coming the opposite direction.
 
Kritchlow said:
No... we were talking about ANY straight in approaches to KASE.
If it has a runway number, it’s straight in.
Click to expand...
Ok, I was talking about Loc/DME E. Back to your approach, why can't I find it published anywhere? :)
 
Kritchlow said:
I have never heard the lack of a PT is what defund straight in approaches.
Heck, a few years back almost EVERY ILS had an option for a PT, just in case you were not in radar, coming the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
The approach is a straight in LOC/DME with circling only minimums. Maybe I am splitting hairs but you wouldn’t ask for the straight in approach, you would request the LOC/DME and it is up to you if you land straight in or need to circle.
 
George Mohr said:
Ok, I was talking about Loc/DME E. Back to your approach, why can't I find it published anywhere? :)
Click to expand...
As I said, it is a special authorization approach. I believe you need to specifically subscribe to it, then need training on it to use it.
 
Grum.Man said:
I wasn’t aware of a category of approach called a Straight in. If no PT is required it’s a straight in approach.
Click to expand...
No.... a straight in approach is a non-circling approach. Nothing to do with a PT.
 
Kritchlow said:
As I said, it is a special authorization approach. I believe you need to specifically subscribe to it, then need training on it to use it.
Click to expand...
I've seen lots of such approaches, but they are all published and state their restrictions. I wonder if this approach was decommissioned?
 
George Mohr said:
I've seen lots of such approaches, but they are all published and state their restrictions. I wonder if this approach was decommissioned?
Click to expand...
I really don’t know the status. I do know at my old job we were not authorized to use it, and had no charts for it. But it did exist at the time.
 
Kritchlow said:
No.... a straight in approach is a non-circling approach. Nothing to do with a PT.
Click to expand...

Btw I edited my post to better convey my thoughts. But back to the topic. What if you land straight in and don’t circle?
 
Grum.Man said:
Btw I edited my post to better convey my thoughts. But back to the topic. What if you land straight in and don’t circle?
Click to expand...
You can do that if you can get down. That still does not make it a straight in. I’m not sure of the legal reasons. Perhaps that terpster guy will chime in.
 
Grum.Man said:
Btw I edited my post to better convey my thoughts. But back to the topic. What if you land straight in and don’t circle?
Click to expand...
That's no problem. You don't have to "circle" to use circling minimums. If the runway is in front of you and you can make a normal landing, you are good to go.
 
George Mohr said:
That's no problem. You don't have to "circle" to use circling minimums. If the runway is in front of you and you can make a normal landing, you are good to go.
Click to expand...
I know that’s why I brought it up. It’s not a circling approach, it’s circling minimums.
 
Kritchlow said:
You can do that if you can get down. That still does not make it a straight in. I’m not sure of the legal reasons. Perhaps that terpster guy will chime in.
Click to expand...
By definition it does. But I’m not trying to convince you. Doesn’t really make any difference worth debating.
 
George Mohr said:
I've seen lots of such approaches, but they are all published and state their restrictions. I wonder if this approach was decommissioned?
Click to expand...

No, there are thousands that are perfectly legitimate procedures, ATC clears people for them, but they are not "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures" as defined in Part 97. Rather, they are "Special IAPs", which means they may be to a private runway, or for private use. Often, this means the organization wanting to use them paid the FAA or its contractors for the development and maintenance of the approach, as opposed to one developed for the public at taxpayer expense.

These are not published in a pilot-usable form, and you will not see them on the FAA's web page, since they are not public-use. Rather, they are provided in "data" form to whoever paid for them and that company can then contract with other companies, like Jepp, to chart them.
 
Grum.Man said:
By definition it does. But I’m not trying to convince you. Doesn’t really make any difference worth debating.
Click to expand...
No, there are only circling minimums published. No straight in mins. You can maneuver however you wish within the protected airspace. That does not hold true with a straight in approach.
 
Kritchlow said:
No, there are only circling minimums published. No straight in mins. You can maneuver however you wish within the protected airspace. That does not hold true with a straight in approach.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Lots of straight in approaches have circling minimums.
 
Grum.Man said:
Sure it does. Lots of straight in approaches have circling minimums.
Click to expand...
Nor can you circle if you are cleared for the LOC 15 approach unless you get permission.
 
If you are cleared the LOC-E approach you can do whatever you want within the protected area (unless there is a published restriction).
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, but you cannot circle if you go to the straight in mins.
Click to expand...

What are straight in Mins, never heard of that. There are precision and non precision mind, LOC, LNAV, Circling, VOR, NDB, are all non precision approaches. ILS, VNAV, LPV are all precision approaches each having their own minimums. I’m not aware of any straight in minimums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top